I am not splitting hairs Horace, only pointing out the specificities of the experiment --which unfortunately I am not equipped to perform personally to answer Jones's question-- that I suggest to test the hypothesis. It involves indeed two sided electrolysis on the same metal plate, as you have suggested, only in my scheme there must be no barrier (both surfaces must be raw metal), and both sides must be used as a cathode _permanently_ : since what I want to encourage is encounters between outgoing and incoming deuterons on one of the surfaces (let's call it active rather than back or front), I want incoming deuterons there all the time, so the active surface must be a permanent cathode. I also want deloading deuterons there all the time, so the other surface (the loading one) must be a permanent cathode too.
In fact two sided DC electrolysis with a common cathode has already been done in this 2002 paper which I have already quoted: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPdeuteriumg.pdf but in their experiment both cells were at the same voltage, whereas in my proposal one cell (the active one) must run at a lower voltage so it not only electrolyzes but also simultaneously deloads. Clearer? Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Horace Heffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 2:18 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Surface Electron Layer Catalyzed Fusion hypothesis (was Re: Mystery pictures) > > On Aug 29, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: > >> Whether we call it "back" or "front" is irrelevant I agree, but >> unless I missed it, your quotes below do not mention what I suggest >> i.e. **deloading at a surface used simultaneously as a cathode for >> electrolysis (while electrolytically loading at the opposite >> surface)**. If they do, kindly quote specifically the relevant >> excerpt, I tend to get lost in your myriads of proposals. > > My goodness, we are splitting hairs here. > > >> >> Or maybe you thought my "while electrolyzing" referred to the >> loading surface, in which case yes indeed you had suggested >> electrolytic loading at a surface to do things (other than >> electrolysis) > > Not true. Two sided electrolysis is also suggested. In fact, the > entire scenario was initially based on my experience doing HV > electrolysis. > >> at the opposite surface. Is this what you thought? > > Hopefully it was clear that the following text, the "Back side de- > loading issues" thread, is referring to doing electrolysis on both > sides of an electrode, using independent electrolysis cells separated > by a single electrode, loading on one side (the front side) and de- > loading on the other side (the back side). It should also be clear > that this is simultaneous electrolysis, not electrolysis done on one > side and then then other at some other time. The only remaining > question that I can see as a possible issue then is whether it is > suggested that the cathode be driven as a cathode from both sides at > the same time. This seems to me to be a fairly obvious thing > considering I wrote: > >> An alternative may be, on the back side, to use pulsed AC on top of >> a DC trickle current used to sustain the anodized layer. >> >> Very high frequency high voltage AC intervals with low duty cycles, >> on the back side, would cause tunneling directions across the >> backside of the barrier to switch directions, alternating many >> times per volume diffused, and thereby increasing fusion prospects >> per diffused atom. It also increases the probability of OH- de- >> ionization, loosing free electrons to attach to the backside >> diffusion barrier. > > Clearly, due to the oscillating tunneling directions, there are > phases of every cycle where the electrode is driven as an > electrolysis cathode from both sides simultaneously. This strikes > me as much superior to driving the back side as a cathode with only > DC, and in any case using pure back side DC is an obvious variety of > back side de-loading, and one not having any special utility over the > suggested method. > > > Here is the "Back side de-loading issues" thread again: > > > On Aug 9, 2007, at 2:24 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: > >> The backside de-loading scheme seems to have good rationale within >> the deflation fusion model. The problem is to achieve it in a >> practical way. >> >> The key is establishing a back-side diffusion barrier, and using >> the right cross-barrier potential in order to match the de-loading >> and loading rates so as to sustain high hydrogen fugacity. It is >> also an objective to provide a high electron charge density >> immediately opposite the de-loading barrier. One means of >> increasing charge density is to increase field strength by using a >> high dielectric strength material opposite the barrier. >> >> Now for a surprise. One way to achieve many of these objectives is >> to make the back side an anode immersed in a water. The water acts >> as the dielectric. The field strength across the two layer water >> interphase can be well over 10^6 V/m. >> >> The anodic diffusion barrier can be deposited and even maintained/ >> healed by anodization. The target for hydrogen tunneling then is >> OH- molecules in the interphase, and any free electrons that might >> be ionized off them and attached to the anodized barrier. >> >> One problem with this approach is keeping the electrons from >> tunneling across the backside barrier to the hydrogen instead of >> the hydrogen tunneling through the back side barrier to the >> electrons. The down side to electron tunneling through the >> backside barrier is (1) deflation fusion is accomplished best by >> simultaneous deuteron tunneling to an electron and (2) fusion on >> the front side of the barrier will cause disruption of the lattice, >> destruction of the barrier, and possible helium blockage. >> >> Preventing the problems should be possible by energetically denying >> them by driving front side electrolysis at a much higher voltage >> once loading is complete. >> >> Operating with a superimposed pulse, on both the front and back >> side potentials, to trigger hydrogen barrier tunneling, may be >> efficient because it gives the lattice time to diffuse replacement >> hydrogen, backside gas a chance to dissipate, and the interphase to >> recover. >> > > On Aug 9, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: > >> An alternative may be, on the back side, to use pulsed AC on top of >> a DC trickle current used to sustain the anodized layer. >> >> Very high frequency high voltage AC intervals with low duty cycles, >> on the back side, would cause tunneling directions across the >> backside of the barrier to switch directions, alternating many >> times per volume diffused, and thereby increasing fusion prospects >> per diffused atom. It also increases the probability of OH- de- >> ionization, loosing free electrons to attach to the backside >> diffusion barrier. > >
